Skip to content

Dry Nightmares and Wet Dreams

20/10/2010

It’s hump day! And after a wet spell, the weather is dry in Sydney today.

I’m going to cover a load of subjects to day starting with soccer!

Firstly, a little dry nightmare for Manchester United fans.

Wayne Rooney wants to leave Manchester United – Ferguson

A CANDID Sir Alex Ferguson has explained that super star forward Wayne Rooney does want to leave Manchester United but the club has made a fresh contract offer.

The stunned Man U manager said he “disappointed” and at a loss to explain Rooney’s stance as the club had done everything to look after him, on and off the field.

Ferguson had never had an argument with Rooney over his selection, but explained the decision not to play him full games due to his ankle injury.

After days of raging speculation about the 24-year-old’s future, a clearly stunned Ferguson broke his silence on the saga by announcing that the club’s most important player wanted out of Old Trafford.

“I had a meeting with him. He intimated to me in his own way that he wanted to leave,” Ferguson said at an extraordinary press conference ahead of United’s Champions League match with Turkish side Bursaspor on Wednesday.

Ferguson, who described himself as “shocked and disappointed” by Rooney’s position, said he was unable to provide an explanation for the player’s desire to move after six successful years at the club.

“We’re as bemused as anyone can be because we can’t quite understand why he’d want to leave a club that no-one can deny is the most successful in British football,” Ferguson said.

SOURCE:http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/soccer/wayne-rooney-wants-to-leave-manchester-united-ferguson/story-e6frfg8x-1225940979993?from=public_rss

Oh all those tears have converted into a little wet dream on the other side of the world!

Newcastle Jets officially announce LA Galaxy tour

A-League club Newcastle Jets together with the NSW State Government have officially announced the visit of MLS giants LA Galaxy for an exhibition match next month.

In a massive coup for Hunter region, the Galaxy, with superstars David Beckham and Landon Donovan in two, will travel down under and spend four days in the area before taking on the Jets at EnergyAustralia Stadium on Saturday, November 27.

It will be the second visit by the Galaxy who came out to play Sydney FC in 2007, attracting 80,000 fans in a thrilling 5-3 encounter.

Minister for the Hunter, Jodi McKay, was extremely buoyant when announcing the event.

“This is fantastic news for football fans and for tourism in the Hunter. The phenomenal global interest in David Beckham, World Cup hero Landon Donovan and the LA Galaxy team means Newcastle and the Jets will be in the spotlight for sports enthusiasts from around the world,” said Minister McKay.

“There’s sure to be a great deal of global media interest in David, Landon and the LA Galaxy visit to Newcastle and in the game itself. It’s sure to generate interest in Australia and around the world for the Hunter as a great place to spend time.”

Jets executive chairman Ken Edwards admitted it was a brilliant coup by the club.

“Jodi, together with the Jets, have worked very hard over the past 72 hours to ensure this exhibition match happens for the people of the Hunter. On behalf of the Jets I thank the NSW Government sincerely for their financial support and the great personal support provided by Jodi to get this deal over the line,” he said.

The Jets have had a huge month since mining and racing magnate Nathan Tinkler took over as owner and this event only adds testament to the work the new officials have done since his instalment.

SOURCE:http://au.sports.yahoo.com/football/news/article/-/8165268/newcastle-jets-officially-announce-la-galaxy-tour

Not a bad coup there for Newcastle Jets. However ever wet dream comes with a little dry nightmare today. This one seems to have one of each. LA Galaxy touring. A wet dream!! They are bringing Beckham. A dry nightmare!!

It wouldn’t be hump day without a little talk about parliament.

This week the parliament was finally going to actually do something it should have done years ago: finally mention the war.

Debate on Afghanistan began yesterday with rather bland speeches by both leaders. Lots of sabre rattling but both aimed at those nasty Islamic fundamentalists (splitters). The rather dry nature of the debates was followed by the traditional media cow-tailing of their respective heroes with Daniel Filkin from The Age actually calling  Julia Gillard’s speech workmanlike and Tony Abbott’s speech as Churchillian.

Talk won’t turn tide

The two parties have split on Afghanistan – at least in how they tell the story of this nine-year war.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard took a workmanlike approach, a dour statement of steps to resolve the conflict.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, by contrast, grasped for a more Churchillian tone, invoking a ”nobility of purpose” and an appeal to ”universal decencies of mankind”.

Advertisement: Story continues below

For now, whatever the rhetorical dressing, they agree on a narrow goal for Australia in this conflict: train the Afghan army to fight the bad guys. What happens after that seems to depend on America’s lead.

If US President Barack Obama holds to his pledge to begin a gradual withdrawal of US forces from next year, it is most likely Australia’s troops will also eventually head home, to be replaced by advisers. Gillard stuck to the two-to-four-year formula for how long it would take to train the Afghan army in Oruzgan province.

But Abbott warned that an ”indefinite military commitment in just one country” was better than a regional meltdown. The Taliban, he said, were fighting to impose a brutal system on ”the whole world”.

Abbott appears torn, at once rapt with the old neo-con zeal of ”the case for democracy, for pluralism” but admitting Afghanistan may never be a Western-style democracy.

He accepted the international commitment could not be entirely open-ended and defined a ”win” for Australia as training a brigade of the Afghan army. But he left open the prospect of doing more.

This seems to stem from Abbott’s instinct to stand close to Washington.

Gillard also praised America, but from Abbott it seemed more visceral. He risks being exposed championing a war Americans are ever more weary of, let alone losing focus on the interests of Australia.

Both speeches had strengths. But it’s hard to imagine either turning back a growing public apathy about this war.

SOURCE: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/talk-wont-turn-tide-20101019-16sjw.html

Personally I found both rather uninspiring and was surprised when I didn’t see Tony slip across the floor and give Julia a tongue kiss and Julia give Tony’s arse a good feel up in a good act of consensual dry humping.

A day however is a long time in politics and after listening to an afternoon of the reason to be there still, two voices arrived today with the reasons to pack up and leave.

Adam Bandt argued cause to leave; Andrew Wilkie showed that cause.

Wilkie, Bandt blast Afghan troop deployment

Crossbench MPs have spoken out in Parliament against Australia’s commitment to the Afghanistan war, calling for troops to be brought home immediately.

Debate on the conflict began in Parliament yesterday with Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott voicing their bipartisan support for continued involvement in the war-torn country.

But Greens MP Adam Bandt and independent MP Andrew Wilkie have slammed Australia’s continued troop deployment as unjustifiable, dangerous and wrong.

Mr Bandt says efforts to train local forces have not been as successful as the Government says.

“I know many Australians ask the legitimate question: what will happen to the population if we pull out? But there’s an alternative question – is us being there making the problem worse?” he said.

Mr Bandt will introduce a bill which would require future deployments to be approved by both houses of Parliament.

Ms Gillard warned yesterday that Australia will be involved in Afghanistan for at least the rest of this decade but Mr Bandt said this was not acceptable.

“If coalition troops are there for another decade, a whole generation of boys and girls will have grown up under occupation and we must expect all the consequences that may flow from that,” he said.

Mr Wilkie, a former military officer and intelligence analyst, described Ms Gillard’s statement as “extraordinary”.

“If it was up to me, I’d be very concerned with any military plan that still had us fighting in Afghanistan in 10 month’s time, let alone 10 years,” he said.

Mr Bandt said the Government had not adequately addressed allegations of corruption and criminality in Afghanistan’s Karzai administration.

“On Monday I asked a question of the Minister for Defence about the alleged criminality of the Karzai government. He dodged the point and again yesterday, and today the Government has failed to respond directly,” he said.

Mr Wilkie took aim at the Government and Opposition’s argument that Australia needed to stay on in Afghanistan to stop terrorism threats.

“Ditch the dishonest terrorism rhetoric and try and sell the real reasons for our seemingly open-ended involvement in a war that has gone from bad to worse over nine years, making it one of the longest wars in Australian history.” he said.

Mr Wilkie says while he is pro-United States, Australia would be at less risk of being taken for granted if it sometimes said no.

And he questioned why other MPs were not speaking out.

“Whatever happened to some of you that now you’re so ready to sacrifice your soul for your party’s political self-interest?” he said.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith, who also spoke in the Parliament today, said progress was being made and it was essential for Australia to remain in Afghanistan.

“The international community has cause for cautious optimism but we face a resilient insurgency and the situation in Afghanistan remains difficult, serious and dangerous with the potential to revert,” he said.

Opposition defence science technology and personnel spokesman Stuart Robert says Australia must support the United States or risk being exposed to regional threats.

“This will require a strong and credible US as a counter balance, not one damaged from defeat in Afghanistan,” he said.

“Our regional security remains predicated on the US’s capacity to take decisive military action if required.

“A failing and weak Pakistan would be a significant problem for India and thus a significant regional issue.”

SOURCE: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/20/3043474.htm

Bandt and Wilkie broke the dryness of the house. The former with anger at the flow of blood and the latter with the shedding of a tear as he ended his speech with a memorial to the 21 dead Australian soldiers.

The one point that Wilkie made and made clear was the parliament is supposed to be a voice of the people that elected them there and they should listen to that voice. Watch them both ignore it in their desire to seek parliamentary control.

Personally I was moved by both Bandt and Wilkie today. Bandt’s argument seemed to not lack passion, but it did seem to not be as substantially backed in statistical facts and figures as did Wilkie’s. But Wilkie’s was just as passionate if not more so. I suppose my ears pick up a little when I hear the voice of a person who was both a soldier, an intelligence officer, and a graduate of Duntroon.

If you asked me yesterday, I would say stay on the job. Today, I am not so sure. Perhaps it will be best to leave and let the country rebuild rather a little while Afghanistan knows we would return if they need us to. You can’t fight Afghanistan like it was Iraq and the irony there is we did a crappy job there. Is that what we want? An Iraqi like outcome?

As I said. Wilkie’s tears bought a dry lump in my throat. A vision of a possible nightmare or a dream. We wait and see.

Finally, lets talk water.

This is what this post was all about. The dryness of the debate. The water that is dream. Last week we saw the despair and confusion of irrigators that ended in the burning of the MDB document. But today,  I saw this article.

Tony Burke soothes angry irrigators

WATER Minister Tony Burke moved to quell the fears of irrigators last night.

He did it at a roundtable meeting just hours after representatives from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority faced a barrage of questions from a Senate estimates committee.

Mr Burke, who has come under sustained criticism from the opposition for not attending the community consultation meetings held by the MDBA in regional centres last week, held talks last night with several concerned irrigators at Parliament House in Canberra.

The roundtable discussion followed the further questioning of Mr Burke in parliament on the need to push ahead with the process of fixing the over-allocation of the Murray-Darling Basin.

The Water Minister told parliament the MDBA recommendations of a reduction of 27-37 per cent in the water available to irrigators was “not government policy” and those numbers could be reduced if gains in water efficiency along the river system could be made.

MDBA chief executive Rob Freeman yesterday told the Senate estimates hearing that considering improvements in engineering to increase the efficiency of irrigation and environmental flows was outside its jurisdiction.

Mr Freeman said the MDBA had found that 3000GL of water was the absolute minimum needed to be purchased back from irrigators and returned to the environment. But he said if efficiency gains such as pumping water to the Menindee Lakes were implemented, less water would need to be bought back from irrigators.

Mr Freeman conceded that if those gains could not be found then a new impact study announced on Sunday by the MDBA would have little effect on proposed cuts to water entitlements.

“How will the authority deal with it if you are saying that 3000 is the minimum to meet the environmental objectives and the new research you have done on social and economic impacts comes back and says 3000 is too great a social and economic impact,” Coalition senator and spokesman for the Murray-Darling Simon Birmingham asked.

Mr Freeman said: “That would ultimately drive the authority to have to choose 3000.”

National Irrigators Council boss Danny O’Brien, who attended last night’s roundtable meeting, said Mr Freeman’s comments confirmed the fears of irrigators about the way the MDBA was interpreting the Water Act.

“Under the Water Act as it stands, people don’t count. Effectively it says: find out what the environment needs and deliver it, then count the damage,” he said.

Speaking from Rome, opposition water spokesman Barnaby Joyce criticised the process of conducting a second socio-economic study when the minimum cut in entitlements had already been determined. “If you are going to have an inquiry to find a solution but the solution will be determined by these numbers, it is not really open and transparent,” Senator Joyce said.

“They should look at how much water can be taken out of the system without causing serious social and economic consequences.”

The estimates hearing also heard that the MDBA was only provided with the final copy of the socio-economic analysis completed by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics the day it released its guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

I’ve made note before on twitter that Tony Bourke has this ‘thing’. He can take a crowd on the edge of riot and calmly and collectively get his point across as well as LISTEN. Now sure, this meeting was not exactly the same town hall style meeting that ended in the fiery bonfire, but he did speak to concerned bodies and representatives and they walked away from that meeting in a much more positive mood.

They will then go back to those that they speak for and perhaps a little calm can be spread around.That’s a good thing.

Let’s hope both parties get together on this and prevent the rivers involved from becoming a dry nightmare for those that need it,and instead fully flow and become the foundation of the dreams and hopes they have for the families.

Of course my blog wouldn’t be the same without a little humor and video or two. So.. here goes.

A nightmare of a scene in a dry cleaners. (ewwwww blood!)

And a nightmare of a scene about wet dreams! (ewwwww sperm!)

A. Ghebranious   2010     All Rights Reservered

2 Comments
  1. Excellent is precisely what I would rate this info! It was well delivered and well received. It was effortless to read and very much appreciated. Thank you!

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Inner West LIVE

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,700 other followers

%d bloggers like this: